Swap Mecoprop preferred CAS #91
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Merged
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
ReCiPe has two flowables with the same name (Mecoprop) but different CAS numbers. What the LCIAFormatter does is to select only one of these Mecoprop CAS numbers as a source for CFs. In the LCIAFormatter, CAS 7085-19-0 is considered the canonical mecoprop, and CAS 93-65-2 is ignored. Ecoinvent seems to have done the opposite: it selected 93-65-2 as the reference Mecoprop.
I can't tell which of the CAS numbers is the unanimously recognized canonical one. For instance, in the CAS Common Chemistry website, the canonical CAS is 93-65-2, and 7085-19-0 appears under "Deleted or Replaced CAS numbers". In the ECHA website there's no reference to CAS number 93-65-2, just 7085-19-0, and in PubChem both appear under the CAS number section.
I tend to think that we should follow the Ecoinvent case here, because it is more conservative: it has one-order magnitude higher impacts than FEDEFL's, as well as an extra CF that the FEDEFL does not have (Human noncarcinogenic toxicity).
@ErCollao @ganorris